Herminia Ibarra suggests in her 2015 article ‘The
Authenticity Paradox’ in the Harvard Business Review that “a too rigid
definition of authenticity can get in the way of effective leadership” where
she lists three examples and the problems they can pose;
The first is “being true to yourself: Which self? We have
many selves, depending on the different roles that we play in life. We evolve
and even transform ourselves with experience in new roles. How can we be true
to a future self that is still uncertain and unformed?”
But being truly authentic recognises the different roles
we may ‘play’ as Herminia phrases it – where at the outset I’m not convinced
‘play’ and ‘authenticity’ belong together. If we are genuinely authentic people
then we recognise how we ‘operate’ in different situations, are happy to be
open about the different styles we may adopt and are well grounded in respect
of our strengths and weaknesses in these different situations.
Transforming ourselves through our careers doesn’t stop
us being authentic – and we can be true to a future self as ‘we’ know the kind
of employees, managers, leaders we want to become and again are happy to be
open about it as well as the ‘concerns’ we might have about that future self.
Truly authentic people use the vision of their ‘future self’ to help them develop
– where these employees are often driven to ‘plan/suggest’ their own personal development
significantly more than other employees that hide their authentic self to play
the corporate game – where these unauthentic people are unsure of the ‘future
self’ they want to become and allow their development to be led by the
organisation.
Her second example is “maintaining strict coherence
between what you feel and what you say or do. You lose credibility and
effectiveness as a leader if you disclose everything you think and feel,
especially when you are unproven.”
Again there are inconsistencies in this statement – for
example, the suggestion that you lose credibility and effectiveness as a leader
if you disclose everything you think and feel, lacks substance, as authenticity
doesn’t imply that you do this in the first place. Authenticity by its very
definition allows you to tell people, for example, that there are certain
operational issues you can’t discuss for whatever reason or tell your team that
how you feel personally isn’t important to the required goal – this is still
being authentic as long as you are consistent too.
Also some may argue that the time to be fully transparent
is when you are unproven – as it allows your team to ‘understand’ your actions
and approach more clearly; and allows them along with your manager to give more
authentic feedback on your approach. If you’re hiding your real self as you’re
developing as a leader – then the feedback will create unnecessary problems as
you have to either explain yourself or become more authentic.
Herminia’s third example is “making values-based choices.
When we move into bigger roles, values that were shaped by past experiences can
lead us astray. For instance ‘tight control over operating details’ might
produce authentic but wrong-headed behaviour in the face of new challenges.”
But again there are inconsistencies with this example too.
For instance organisations should have their own corporate values that don’t
change as you move up the corporate ladder – employees should ensure that their
personal values meet the corporate values when they join the organisation –
though more often than not this is more of an afterthought, or something
employees learn once they’ve joined their new employer. Though to be honest if
the interview process is handled professionally each party should be clear that
their values aren’t just clear and understood – but that they match as well.
‘Tight control over operating details’ is a very strange
value, regardless whether it’s a personal or corporate value. It seems to
describe a management style which would contradict with normal organisational values
like empowerment, trust, etc.
It will be a sad day for business and students preparing
to enter business, if ‘corporate advisors’ start, or rather continue to suggest
that employees and employers shouldn’t be authentic in work all the time – as
this will lead to a distrusting culture which will create a self-fulfilling
prophecy of despair and distrust in all aspects of the business and eventually
lead to a lack of authenticity, being replaced by corporate politics and game
playing.
Leaders need to treat their employees as mature and
trustworthy if they want to optimise their future sustainable growth – failure
to do this will take us back to the days of command and control leadership,
distrusting organisations, employees working with their own futures in mind
(and not that of their organisation) – which leads to the two-headed corporate
image; the false external one of this happy and content organisation given to
customers, suppliers and other external stakeholders and the real internal
image that wrecks of infighting, back-stabbing and command and control
bullying.
There are still two very distinct types of organisations
– the first has a positive culture that makes transparency and authenticity
easy and natural behaviours at all levels of the organisation and then sadly
there are still too many negative organisational cultures that create
environments that aren’t conducive to being authentic and ‘force’ employees to
play corporate games to ensure their survival.
It’s up to each one of us to ‘show’ the real benefits of
being authentic – as even in the negatives cultures, individuals will learn
that you are someone who they can trust and rely on and in the end you will
come out a winner, as will the organisation.
References
Ibarra, H. (2015). The Authenticity Paradox. Harvard
Business Review; Jan-Feb; p.52-59.
